/n

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS

MINORITY REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE.

MINORITY REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE-
SENTATIVES.

Mr. Thomas L. Harris, from the Select Committee to whom was
referred the President's message concerning the constitution framed
at Lecompton, submitted the following

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

On the 2d day of February last the President of the United States
transmitted to both Houses of Congress an elaborate message, urging
Congress to admit Kansas into the Union as a sovereign State in virtue
of a so-called constitution said to have been adopted by a convention
of delegates assembled at Lecompton, a copy of which constitution he
also transmitted to the Senate, and which has been, by its order,
printed and is now before the country.

Upon the reading ot the message of the President in the House of
Representatives, it was by that body—

uBesolved, That the message of the President of the United States
concerning the constitution framed at Lecompton, in the Territory of
Kansas, by a convention of delegates thereof, and the papers accom-
panying the same, be referred to a select committee of fifteen mem-
bers, to be appointed by the. Speaker; that said committee be instructed
to inquire into all the facts connected with the formation of .said consti-
tution, and the laws under which the same was originated, and into
all such facts and proceedings as have transpired since the formation
of said constitution, having relation to the question or propriety of
the admission of said Territory into the Union under said constitution ;
and whether 1he same is acceptable and satisfactory to a majority of
the legal voters of Kansas ; and that said committee have power to
send tor persons and papers."

The committee appointed by the Speaker under this resolution, after
four brief sessions, being composed, with a majority of its members,
of those who had resisted its adoption —

"fiesolved, That the law of the Territory of Kansas providing for
taking the sense of the people of that Territory upon the propriety of
their applying for admission as a State into the Union, and the vote
of the people under said law ; also, the law of said Territory providing
for a call of a convention in pursuance of the popular will thus
expressed, together with the registration of voters and the apportion-
ment of delegates to said convention under said act, and the election
of delegates as officially certified to ; the said constitution, as framed
by said convention, and the vote on its submission under its own
schedule and provisions as officially adjudged and announced, embrace
all the laws and facts essential to the investigation of the questions
submitted to this committee under the resolution of their appointment.

"Iiesolved, That while we do not consider the votes of the 4th of
January last, on the submission of said constitution by the late terri-
torial legislature, as having any material bearing upon the points of

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 3

ttiis inquiry, yet we admit, receive, and allow to be filed with the
other matters collected by this committee, the vote at that election as
proclaimed and published by the officers of the legislature.' '

The majority of the committee adopted also a report based, not upon
facts or evidence, but setting up speculations and surmises instead of
reliable information ; and sharp criticisms upon opinions heretofore
advanced by distinguished citizens, rather than reasons why Kansas
ought to be admitted into the Union under the Lecompton constitution.

The undersigned were prevented by the action of the majority of
the committee from obtaining that reliable information which they
desired and which they think they had a right to expect. Every
avenue of inquiry was firmly blocked up, and we are compelled to
follow the example which the majority have set in submitting our
views upon the President's message and the meagre data already
before the country, rather than upon authenticated facts collected by
the committee.

The President in this message has departed from the usual prece-
dents heretofore set by his distinguished predecessors, and instead of
leaving Congress to decide the question with calmness and dispassion,
he has argued in favor of the admission of the proposed State at great
length and with unusual vehemence. It is believed that no similar
interposition and feeling have ever been exhibited in favor of the
admission of any State. Eighteen new ones have entered the Union,
commencing in 1791, and coming down through nearly every successive
administration, but in no case has the President ever taken sides in
this earnest manner tor or against the proposed action of Congress.
If it shall be said that the case of Kansas is an unusual one, and
required from the Executive an expression of his views and opinions,
it will also be conceded that the California case was quite as unusual.
But on that occasion the message of the President was as follows :

Ci To the House of Representatives of the United States:

"I transmit herewith to the flouse of Representatives, for the infor-
mation of that body, an authentic copy of the constitution of the
State of California, received by me from Gen. Riley.

"Z. TAYLOR.
"Washington, February 13, 1850/'

The undersigned cannot but contrast this brief message of General
Taylor, following, as it did, the early precedents in like cases, with the
lengthy argument of President Buchanan in favor of the Lecompton
constitution, and they infer from it that the President feels an extra-
ordinary solicitude that Kansas shall at once be admitted into the
Union under the constitution transmitted. Not only does the Presi-
dent take this deep interest in the admission of Kansas, but the
members of his cabinet are equally strenuous in urging their views
upon the public in the shape of epistolary arguments in favor of the
President's project. The multitude of those who hold official station
at the hands of the President, or at the hands of his constitutional
advisers, are induced to enlist their efforts to the same end, or if they
differ in opinion and have independence enough to avow it, they are

4 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS,

promptly displaced, and others more accordant in judgment or more
servile in character are appointed their successors. These very un-
usual proceedings and efforts on the part of the Executive, and the
perturbed condition of the public mind, have induced the undersigned
to give to the subject, under the instructions of the resolution of the
House, their most careful attention.

In the message of the President, it is stated that u a great delusion
seems to pervade the public mind in relation to the condition of parties
in Kansas," and the President affirms that a portion of the people of
Kansas are in rebellion " against the government under which they
live." If it really be true that a great delusion pervades the public
mind on this Kansas difficulty, it is greatly to be regretted. The
American people pride themselves upon their intelligence, and their
attention has been, for four years, most intently directed to Kansas
affairs. Thousands of newspapers have been collecting every item of
information relating to them, and spreading it before the public.
[Numerous and able reports have been made by committees of both
Houses of Congress, composed of their ablest members, and of all
political parties, which reports have been printed and scattered broad-
cast everywhere for public information. Volumes of sworn testimony
and documentary evidence have been published and sent to every
neighborhood and hamlet. Numerous messages from different chief
magistrates have been sent to Congress and printed by millions of
copies ; and the late annual message of Mr. Buchanan, in which he
elaborately discusses Kansas affairs, had been for two months in every
man's hand and in every man's mind, and yet he informs us, in his
message of the 2d of February, that this i ' great delusion" still cc per-
vades the public mind" in relation to affairs in Kansas.

The undersigned think it is unfortunate that the President has
failed to communicate to Congress the evidence upon which he founds
his opinion of this pending delusion, and as for want of such evidence,
we have failed to discern the existence of such " delusion ;" it has
consequently been impossible to ascertain its cause, its extent, or its
character, or to propose an adequate remedy. That an anxious state
of the public mind exists in Kansas concerning the action of Congress
upon this constitution we can well believe. But we have not been
able to learn that there is an existing rebellion in that Territory of
such character as the President intimates. A rebellion is an open
resistance to lawful authority by arms or otherwise, and the rebellion
of a people must be open resistance to government by large, if not
controlling masses.

The undersigned, after the most careful inquiry, (the majority of the
committee refusing to hear any testimony on the subject,) have been
able to gather no information that the people of Kansas are (or have
been since the late October election, at least,) in resistance or even
opposition to any law of Congress, or to the government of the United
States ; and there is ample evidence that the people of Kansas are in
entire harmony with the territorial government, both legislative and
executive, and are warmly and enthusiastically supporting both. If
there has been any hostility to the territorial government, it has been

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. O

on the part of the Lecompton convention, and on the part of those who
approve its action.

It is not untrue that, when an attempt was lately being made to
subvert their territorial government by fraud, deceit, and crime, and
to substitute in its place one disapproved by at least four-fifths of the
people of Kansas, that people became excited and indignant. They
denied the binding force of the new government ; they protested against
it at the polls by at least nine thousand majority of the legal voters,
they protested against it in solemn and earnest legislative resolves.

The people in primary assemblies everywhere condemned it, while
there has been scarcely one voice raised in its defence. The people of
Kansas, by such majorities, deny the validity of the proposed new
government, and say it is not theirs. They have sent their petitions
and protests here, praying Congress not to force Kansas into the
Union against their wishes. The have moved in arrest of judgment,
and have thus opened the whole record to our examination. But all
this is not rebellion to this proposed government, for there can be no
attempt to resist a government until an attempt at least is made to
enforce it, and no attempt has yet been made to enforce the Lecompton
constitution. There being, then, no effort made to resist the laws of
Congress, the laws of the territorial government, or the proposed
Lecompton constitution, it is not easy to discern the ground upon
which the President rests the charge of an intense disloyal feeling and
an exciting rebellion among the people of Kansas. The President is
speaking of the existing condition of things at the time of his writings
and so are we.

With deference to the President it is submitted that directly the
reverse is the fact, and had we been permitted to take testimony we
could have established this position by indubitable evidence. Nor can
it even be said that those who have thought favorably of the so-called
Topeka constitution are in rebellion against their government. It is
now more than two years since that instrument was formed. There
was, originally, neither treason nor rebellion in its origin or pro-
visions. It was sent to Congress, and on the 24th day of March, 1856,
formally presented in the Senate by General Cass, and, upon his
motion, referred to the Committee on Territories and printed. Its
formation could hardly have been an act of disloyalty or rebellion.
So far as its adoption by the people, on a submission to a vote under the
auspices of the convention that framed it could give it vitality it was
given, but no further. And in this respect it followed examples
before set, which had received the ^approval of Congress. General
Cass would hardly have presented an embodiment of treason and re-
bellion to the Senate of the United States. The improper action of
Governor Robinson (as he is called by the President) and the Topeka
legislature are, by the undersigned, emphatically condemned. Nor
is it believed that their action has met the approval of any considera-
ble number of the citizens of Kansas. But we are not advised that
a,ny attempt has been made to put the Topeka government into prac-
tical operation. Should such attempt be made it would be the duty
of the territorial government to resist it and put it down, but until
finch an attempt is made there is no well-grounded cause of alarm,,

6 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

either to the President or to the country. Yet the great argument in
favor of the admission of Kansas as a State seems founded upon the
supposed rebellious character of her people ; a supposition that can
rest only upon events long since transpired, and upon opinions long
ago exploded. But were the President's opinion correct it would, in-
stead of a reason for the admission of Kansas into the Union, be a
conclusive one against it.

The President, in discussing the organic act, says:

"That this law recognized the right of the people of the Territory,
without any enabling act from Congress, to form a State constitution,
is too clear for argument. For Congress ' to leave the people of the
Territory perfectly free/ in framing their constitution, 'to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States/ and then to say that they shall
not be permitted to proceed and frame a constitution in their own
way without an express authority from Congress appears to be almost
a contradiction in terms."

This reasoning the undersigned believe to be more specious than
sound. It was not necessary that the rights of the people of Kansas
to frame a constitution should be recognized by an act of Congress.
They could do this without such act, and apply for admission under
it, and the admission or rejection of the proposed State would rest
solely in the discretion of Congress. So if Congress should consent
that they might frame a constitution, and send it up as an application
for admission, this would not render it obligatory upon Congress to
admit the proposed State, when such constitution might be presented
here, whatever that constitution, and the circumstances attending its
formation might be. The powers and rights conferred by the Kansas
act were such as related to its territorial condition, and to that end
Congress conferred all the powers it possessed upon the people of Kan-
sas. The organic act contained also certain stipulations, that might
be held as a pledge and contract with the people of Kansas, in regard
to their rights when they come to be admitted into the Union. But
It did not provide that Kansas should come into the Union whenever
the people thereof might desire, nor however they might desire, much.
less that they might come when one thousand of her people might de-
sire to come, and ten thousand desire not to come. If so, then Kansas is a
State in the Union now, and our differences are without foundation.
Ohio had an e?iabling act, and under it a State government was formed,
and she came into the Union without further legislation.

If the original Kansas act was a like enabling act, why does not
Kansas enter the family of States, as the equal and peer of the other
States, and not remain higgling for Congress to unbar the door and
bid her enter ? A moment's inspection of the constitution sent to
Congress will satisfy us that its framers did not consider that they
had the right to form a State without the assent of Congress. This
is evident from the fact that the constitution denies to itself any val-
idity of force, until the State shall be admitted by Congress into the
Union. It does not allow any of the officers, executive, legislative,
or judicial, to enter upon the discharge of any duties, " until after
the admission of Kansas as one of the independent and sovereign

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 7

States/' This provision fixes the time when the authorities of the
proposed State shall assume their functions. The constitution also
provides that, "all officers, civil and military, holding under the
authority of the Territory of Kansas, shall continue to hold and ex-
ercise their respective offices until they shall be superseded by the
authority of the State." These clauses clearly show that the conven-
tion claimed no right to exercise, and did not exercise, any power as a
State, but having- framed their constitution, they sent it to Congress
as a petition, and they now ask us to recognize that constitution as
treating a State, by the admission of such State into the Union. As
a petition, we think it should be considered and acted upon, but that the
framers of that constitution, or the people whom they claimed to rep-
resent, have a right to set up a State government in or out of the
Union, we cannot admit. No such right has ever been conceded to
them by Congress, nor claimed by the people of Kansas.

By looking at the language of the President, above quoted, it will
be seen that, in order to give effect to his argmment, he presents it in
this form. He says :

"For Congress to leave the people of the Territory perfectly free,
i% framing their constitution, to form and regulate their domestic in-
stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the
United States, and then to say that they shall not be permitted to
proceed and frame a constitution in their own way, without the ex-
press authority of Congress, appears to be almost a contradiction in
terms."

But this, "almost contradiction in terms," is entirely removed
when it is seen that the President, to make out this " contradiction in
terms," has inserted in the sentence the words " in framing their con-
sMliMon,7> which, words are not in the act of Congress, nor is their
Import to be implied from the language there used. Not only are
the words thus employed by the President not found in the organic
law but it is not known that any one contends that the people of Kan-
sas "shall not be permitted to proceed and frame a constitution in
their own way without the express authority of Congress." And his
excellency is quite as unfortunate in stating the argument of those
who oppose the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitu-
tion as he is incorrect in stating the language and intent of the Kansas-
Nebraska act. That act provides that " the people of the Territory
shall be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti-
tutions in their own way." Whose institutions ? The institutions
of "the people of the Territory." Is a constitutional State govern-
ment an institution for the "people of a Territory V It is a very
necessary one for the people of a State, but one with which the people
of a Territory have nothing to do.

While, therefore, the people of Kansas, or any part of them, have
a right, by way of petition, to ask Congress to recognize such State
organization as they may propose, and while by the stipulations of
the organic law they may "come into the Union with or without
slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their ad-
mission," yet, as there could be no irregularity in their proceedings
which would prevent Congress from hearing their statement of griev

8 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

ances and granting adequate redress, even by the admission of the
State into the Union, so, on the other hand, there can be no technical
regularity in forming a constitution that can make it incumbent upon
Congress to admit such State as a matter of indisputable right. When-
ever Congress is asked to act and provide for the incoming of a new
State, whether b}^ an original enabling act or a subsequent act of recog-
nition, (as in this case,) it will look into all the circumstances and
decide the question in view of the great results which are to follow its
legislation, both to the people who inhabit the proposed State and to
all the other States of the Union. And this duty of Congress is in no
wise lessened by the acknowledged right of the people (f a Territory
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.
This acknowledged right does not confer that other great right and
privilege of becoming, at any time and under any circumstances, a
State of the Union, and participating in shaping and controlling the
interests of all the States in our confederacy.

The majority of the committee concur with the President in the
opinion that " it is impossible that any people could have proceeded
with more regularity in the formation of a constitution than the people
of Kansas have done/' Differing, as we do, entirely from this opinion,
we propose to examine and test its correctness. "The people" of a
Territory, or any political community, are the whole body, of its citizens ,
~No particular class, organization, or party, inside of the whole body,
can justly be called "the people." If, from any cause, this " whole
body" of citizens are prevented from participating in any popular
function, and it is performed by a part only, it cannot be said that
suchfunctiou is the act of " the people." Before it can be said, there-
fore,, that "the people of Kansas" have regularly proceeded and
formed their constitution, it must appear that the whole body of the
citizens of Kansas had free opportunity, without fear and without con-
straint, to participate in its formation. What now are the facts?

After the passage, in 1854, of the act of Congress creating the Ter-
ritory, parties of widely different views concerning domestic slavery
hastened to occupy its choicest and most eligible portions. They went
resolutely determined to accomplish each an opposite purpose, and
collision and violence almost immediately ensued. At the first election
for members of the territorial legislature, on the 30th day of March,
1855, the pro-slavery party succeeded. The then governor (Reeder)
gave certificates to the members elect, and by his action and that of
the legislative bodies the territorial government went into full opera-
tion under pro-slavery auspices.

Whether that election was fair or unfair, just or fraudulent, it is
not essential to our present inquiry to decide. Certain it is that it
was conducted in a most turbulent, disorderly, and violent manner.
The whole mass of voters were of recent coming to the Territory, and
large numbers doubtless voted upon both sides who shortly afterwards
left for other parts and never returned. Such was doubtless the case
with many adventurers from the eastern States, and such is known to
be the fact in regard to large bodies of men from Missouri. The de-
feated party believed they had been beaten by fraud and violence, and
have always so asserted ; but the action of Governor Reeder and the

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 9

legislative bodies closed the question to us on the present issue, and
had the proceedings of that legislature been just or lawful he would
have been spared any allusion t6* it whatever, and we believe the
people of Kansas would have taken their own wrongs in hand and
redressed them legally at the ballot-box.

But the legislature thus elected assembled and proceeded to enact a
code of laws, many provisions of which have been denounced by men
of all parties as disgraceful and infamous. They were the natural
consequence of a triumph of one party over the other, between whom
so much bitterness of feeling and so many acts of violence had oc-
curred. Our purpose now is to refer only to the eleventh section of
the law concerning elections. It is as follows :

"Sec. 11. Every free white male citizen of the United States, and
every free male Indian who is made a citizen by treaty or otherwise,
and over the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an inhabitant of
this Territory, and of the county or district in which he offers to vote,
and shall have paid a territorial tax, shall be a qualified elector for all
elective officers ; and all Indians who are inhabitants of this Territory,
and who may have adopted the customs of the white man, and who
are liable to pay taxes, shall be deemed citizens : Provided, That no
soldier, seaman, or marine, in the regular army or navy of the United
States, shall be entitled to vote, by reason of being on service therein :
And provided further } That no person who shall have been convicted
of any violation of any provision of an act of Congress entitled ' An
act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
service of their masters/ approved February 12, 1793 ; or of an act
to amend and supplementary to said act, approved 18th September,
1850 ; whether such conviction were by criminal proceeding or by
civil action for the recovery of any penalty prescribed by either of
said acts, in any courts of the. United States, or of any State or Ter-
ritory, of any offence deemed infamous, shall be entitled to vote at any
election, or to hold any office in this Territory : And provided further ,
That if any person offering to vote shall be challenged and required
to take an oath or affirmation, to be administered by one of the judges
of the election, that he will sustain the provisions of the above recited
acts of Congress and of the act entitled ' An act to organize the Ter-
ritories of Nebraska and Kansas,' approved May 30, 1854, and shall
refuse to take suck oath or affirmation, the vote of such person shall be
rejected."

What was the object of these unusual provisoes ? It was not to
ascertain if the person offering to vote was a free white male citizen
of the United States, or a free male Indian made a citizen by treaty
or otherwise, or whether such were over the age of twenty-one years,
or inhabitants of the Territory, or had paid a territorial tax, or had
previously voted at the same election, or had ever been convicted of
infamous crimes or felonies. The oath required was not a test of the
qualification of voters, nor was it intended to be. Its plain purpose
and avowed object was to drive from the polls and disfranchise a very
large portion of the people of Kansas. That such was the purpose, and
the avowed purpose, of this law we have the most reliable informa-
tion, and we believe we could have proved it by sworn witnesses of

10 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

undoubted veracity had we been allowed to do so. It is true, the qual-
ifications of voters was a matter for the legislative assembly to deter-
mine, but this provision is not one of qualification at all. It in no
way relates to the qualifications prescribed ; it is not general in its ap-
plication, and is but an invidious and unjust mode of disfranchise-
ment, reaching only the person challenged. It required every such
person, in advance of being legally called upon to act, to swear that
he would sustain the provisions of the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and
1850. There are thousands of citizens in all parts of the Union that
believe it to be the duty of the States to provide for the rendition of
fugitives, and that the law of Congress is unconstitutional. Others,
who would be willing to act, if called upon by the officers of the law?
to aid in the capture of fugitives, yet, at the same time, they would
scorn and refuse, as a test of their right to vote, to be sworu into a
body of catch-polls to pursue, capture, and return vagabond slaves.
Others, and thousands of those, too, south as well as north, are con-
scientiously opposed to these fugitive slave laws, and desire their modi-
fication or repeal. But, according to this Kansas election law, every
man challenged was required to swear, in effect, not only that he
would aid in enforcing those laws, but that he would svMain, main-
tain, and continue them as they are forever. He must do this or lose
his vote. If the free-State men had seized the first Territorial legis-
lature, and had passed a law requiring every voter, when challenged,
and before he should be allowed to vote, to swear that slavery was a
moral, social, and political evil, and that he would forever oppose, by
all lawful means, its' introduction or establishment in the Territory,
it would have been no more unjust to the pro-slavery party than was
that law already quoted to the free- State party. It was not only un-
just, but it was in violation of the spirit of the act creating the Ter-
ritory, as well as the Constitution of the United States. Its object
was not the purity of elections, but the perpetuation of power in the
hands which then held it,

But it seems unnecessary to discuss it further. Its like had never
before baen heard of in a free country ; and so generally did its mon-
strous and despotic character meet with public condemnation that in
February, 1857, it was, with several other statutes, quite as disgrace-
ful, repealed by the same party that had enacted it. This, however,
was not done until the effects of its operation had become deep and
permanent in the affiairs of the Territory. The same legislature
which passed the law we have just considered, passed also an act in
July, 1855, u for the call of a conventionto form a State constitution,"
by which the sense of "the people," for and against a convention,
was to betaken " at the general election to come off in October, 1856,"
at which u all persons qualified by the laws of the Territory to vote
tor members of the general assembly should be entitled to vote for or
against said convention/' but subject to the exceptions and challenges
provided in the eleventh section of the election law already quoted.
Thus it will be seen that the " sense of the people*' provided to be
taken was in fact not the sense of " the whole people," but the sense
only of that portion who were not disfranchised by the act of legisla-
tion we have considered. u The people" were not left free to exercise

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 11

their rights, but a large portion of them were, by the act of the
legislature, (as it was in tended they should be,) driven from the polls,
and their views choked out by test oaths unlawfully and unjustly
forced upon them by the party that had succeeded in making itself
dominant in Kansas. At the same October election, and under the
same law, a new house of representatives was chosen, the council still
holding over under the first election. The result of this election was
in no doubt. The act of the legislature had done its work. The
free State men, unwilling to submit to the insults, indignities, and
disabilities imposed upon them by this law, withdrew from the polk.
All opposition to the pro-slavery party was at an end, and its candi-
dates were unanimously returned. The territorial power seemed
entailed in fee to the party in possession, and this law intended to
make that possession perpetual.

The vote upon the question of " convention" or " no convention"
was a meagre one of a few hundreds only. We have not been allowed
to procure the official returns of this vote, nor are we aware that any
such ever was made or published. We are informed by what we rely
upon as good authority that the vote was a very trifling one, very
few taking any interest in it whatever, and but a few hundred only
were cast in the entire Territory. It is true that the majority assert
in their resolutions that this vote is " important," yet they have taken
good care not to obtain it officially or otherwise. The majority say
u the vote was almost unanimous for the legislature to call a convention
and to define its duties. But few votes were cast against it." They
might have added with equal truth " but few were cast for it." " The
people" took no part in that election ; and it is incorrect to say that
by it the sense of the people was taken and found to be " for a con-
vention.''

The whole thing would be a farce were it not a stupendous political
outrage. We have thus examined these laws under which the Le-
compton constitution originated, and the facts connected with the
same, up to this point, because we were directed to do so by the order
of the House, and because the President and a majority of the com-
mittee lay great stress upon them, as having been fair, legal, and
regular, and as having afforded "the people" of Kansas full and free
opportunity of deciding against a convention, had they been disposed
to take part in the elections. With entire confidence we pronounced
this alleged taking of the sense of the people to have been unfair, ir-
regular, and illegal, and the pretended return (if there ever was one) not
the -voice of the people of Kansas. The law under which the election
of 1856 was held, and the election itself, were fraudulent, deceitful,
and unjust, and neither are entitled to any respect whatever. Upon
the result of this simulated vote, however, the legislature, (elected
under the same loose enactment,) on the 19th of February, 1857,
passed, over the veto of Governor Geary, " An act to provide for the
taking a census and the election of delegates to a convention." The
first section of the law enacted —

11 That for the purpose of making an enumeration of the inhabitants
entitled to vote under the provisions of this act, an apportionment,
and an election of members of a convention, it shall be the duty of the

12 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

sheriffs of the several counties in Kansas Territory, and they are here-
by required, between the first day of March and the first day of April,
eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, to make an enumeration of all the
free male inhabitants, citizens of the United States, over twenty-one
years of age, and all other white persons actually residing within their
respective counties," &c.

This act clearly required that there should be an enumeration of
" all free male inhabitants," &c. Was this law complied with ? It
will be borne in mind that all the offices of the Territory were in the
hands of that party which had first seized the reins of government.
These officers were to take this census and make the registration, but
so imperfectly or corruptly was it done in some counties, and so large
a number were omitted altogether in others, that the force and effect
of the law were destroyed. There were registered under this law
D,251 voters, whether fairly or not may be judged from the conduct of
those who seemed to control the whole matter. The census was taken
but in twelve of the thirty-four counties, leaving twenty-two in which
no census was taken. In the twelve counties were the census was taken
there were found to be 25,321 inhabitants. In the same counties there
were found and registered 7,854 voters. This would give us the ratio
of voters to the whole population as one to three and twenty-two hun-
dredths. Looking now to the returns of the October election for dele-
gate to Congress, we find there were polled in the counties not regis-
tered 1,693 votes, which, on the ratio above ascertained, would give
for their population 5,451 inhabitants, the vote and the population be-
ing about one-seventh of that of the entire Territory, while eight of the
thirty-four counties returned no votes at the October election, and are
left out of the estimate. This number of unregistered voters would have
been entitled to at least nine delegates in the convention. The total
vote of the Territory for Congress in October last was 11,687, and the
total vote for governor in January last was 13,420, from which at
least 3,000 illegal votes should be deducted ; but, considering the en-
tire vote as legal, we shall then have, upon the ratio above ascertained,
taking the October election as the basis, 37,400, and taking the entire
January vote as the basis, 42,945 as the whole population of the Terri-
tory. It would seem, after making every allowance, that 45,000 is as
large a number as can possibly be claimed by any one upon any basis
of estimate.

With these facts before us, it is unaccountable that the committee
should refuse to consider the subject of population. They say that it
is one of the usual subjects of inquiry. Why, then, not consider it
now ? Are all the usual rules, practices, and requirements of the coun-
try connected with the admission of new States to be ignored in the
case of Kansas ? The undersigned think it a very material fact con-
nected with the propriety of the admission of this State under the
Lecompton constitution. Are we to commence admitting States with
not half population enough to entitle them to a representative in this
House, except as a matter of grace? And is Kansas, for her alleged
rebellion, to be made the first recipient of your generosity ? Let this
example be once set, and Nebraska and Washington may come next
year with one-half the population of Kansas. If we are to sink below

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 13

the federal ratio it will be impossible to fix another line. The com-
mittee say "the sufficiency of the population of Kansas seems to be
conceded on all sides." This, it is true, is a shorter method of dis-
posing of this important inquiry than by an examination of the facts;
but it has never been so conceded by us. We hold it next to indis-
pensable that a Territory applying for admission into the Union shall
have a population equal to that fixed by law as the ratio of represen-
tation in the House of Representatives. Kansas certainly has not
one-half that number, and for this reason alone ought not to be ad-
mitted into the Union, to hold in the Senate a power equal to that of
the States of New York and Virginia ; and to have an equal voice
with either of them in the election of President of the United States,
if an election by the House of Representatives should be made. No-
thing but the most extraordinary circumstances could induce us to con-
sent to such an act.

But, returning to this so called " registration of votes," it will be
seen that Doniphan county is returned with nearly as many votes as
Douglas, when it had, notoriously, but about one-half as many- —
Lawrence, the largest town in the Territory next to Leavenworth,
being in Douglas county. Johnson county is returned with 496 votes ;
yet, when the census was taken and when the vote was cast, no white
man could have a legal residence in that county. It was the Shawnee
reserve, and excluded from settlement by law. Yet it sent three
members to the convention, all non-submissionists.

The majority report states that Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis
had 283 votes. This is not so stated in the governor's proclamation.
No census was taken in either of these counties except Shawnee, and
not one-third of the votes were taken in that county. Richardson and
Davis are well settled counties, lying on the Kansas river, and either
of them having as many votes as were returned from Shawnee. So
notoriously unjust was the return for Shawnee, that Judge Elmore,
who was a delegate from that county in the convention, claimed that
four members were entitled to seats from it, and that number was, in
fact, elected, but two only were allowed their seats.

Bourbon, McGhee, Dorn, and Allen are returned with 645 votes,
yet no census was taken except in Bourbon, and much of that was
fraudulent. No census was taken in either of the other counties,
though all have some population, and McGhee returned at the Octo-
ber election some 1,100 votes ! These facts are furnished by intelli-
gent and reliable gentlemen who have lived in Kansas for more than
three years, and they could have been fully proved had the minority
been allowed to call witnesses. Now, with these returns, some coun-
ties omitted entirely, others in part, others again fraudulently returned
beyond their true population, it cannot be justly said the delegates
elected were the delegates of " the people of Kansas," and that the
constitution which they formed was the constitution of the people of
Kansas. We have already shown that the unjust laws of the Terri-
tory disabled, as they were intended to do, a large portion of the
citizens of the Territory from voting on the question of holding a con-
vention, and in the election of the legislature, which passed the act

14 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

providing for the election of delegates, so that neither of their acts
were the acts of the people of Kansas, but of a part of the people only.

But it is said by the majority in explanation of the non-registration
of voters in the disfranchised counties— which we have shown would
have been entitled to nine members of the convention, representing
near 6,000 inhabitants, and which would have changed the whole
character of the convention — that they ' ' prevented the registry them-
selves/ ' and that it was the result of their own wrong. What is the
proof of this assertion ? All the officers of the Territory were of the .
party who held the legislature and derived their offices from it, and
were to hold them for six years. This was one of the means taken by
that body to perpetuate the power of their party, and done in viola-
tion of the spirit of the territorial act. Upon them rested the duty
of making this registration and census. Why did they not do it ? It
is said that the free-State men would not let them do it, that they
made threats against those who should attempt to make this registra-
tion, and we have seen the ex parte statements of one George Wilson,
who volunteered as a witness, and says u that the life of any one at-
tempting to execute the law in that particular was in danger, and the
foregoing threats were the cause that prevented the taking of the
census in Anderson county within the prescribed time." He also
swears :

" In regard to Passmore Williams, judge of probate for Allen county,
members of the so called free-State party stated to me, in person, that
if he attempted to execute the law and did not leave they would kill
him ; and I know the fact that he did not so execute the law, and left
the county, because he believed his life in danger. Mr. Williams is
from Illinois, and is a free-State man, but belongs to the Democratic
party.

u In regard to Esquire Yocum, judge of probate for Franklin county,
he left the county and the Territory on account of losing his negro
property and having his life menaced. The office being vacant, the
legislature which passed the census law appointed a new judge of
probate and other officers, who refused to serve, alleging as a reason
that they were afraid so doing would cost them their lives. Con-
sequently no census was taken, and no legal election held."

Are these rambling assertions sufficient to justify shutting near six
thousand people in the unregistered counties out of the convention ?
Is a public officer to abandon his post and cease effort to discharge his
duty because some scoundrel utters a threat against him ? Why does
he not give the names of those who threatened this violence? Who
made the threats? Who was bent on violence? When and where
was it done? Why were they not reported to the governor, who
with his posse comitatus of dragoons was ready to enforce the law
and briug the offenders to justice? Let us have specifications and
facts in the shape of testimony before we thus excuse public officers
from the discharge of their duty, and condemn whole comities to suffer
from these charges, and to be shut out of the convention and be de-
prived of all opportunity of participating in forming their constitution.
This hearsay talk about Passmore Williams and Esquire Yocum is
not evidence of any kind. It is doubtless all that could be procured,

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 15

and we are left fully impressed with the faet that these counties were
disfranchised hy the same power and interest that disfranchised so
many voters under the act of 1855, and that it was done for the same
reason. The hulk of the free-State men were not registered, not
because of their own wrong, but because of the intention of the party
in power that they should not vote, exclusion from the registry being
in effect exclusion from the polls. These facts the minority of the
committee were ready to sustain by competent proof had the majority
allowed them to do it.

The seventh section of the law providing for the election of delegates
to the convention declares :

" It shall be the duty of the governor and secretary of the Territory,
so soon as the census shall he completed and returns made, to proceed to
make an apportionment of the members for the contention among the
different counties and election districts in said Territory, in the fol-
lowing manner : the whole number of legal voters shall be divided by
sixty, &c: Provided, That the loss in the number of members, caused
by the fraction remaining in the several counties in the division of the
legal voters thereof, shall be compensated by assigning so many coun-
ties or districts as have the largest fraction an additional member for
its fraction, as may be necessary to ma,ke the whole number of repre-
sentatives sixt}r.'*

The plain intent of this law is, that the apportionment of delegates
to the convention was not to be made until the census should be com-
phted and the returns of such complete census made. The census never
was completed; nor were returns of a complete census ever made, and
the apportionment was therefore illegal. Mr. Stanton, the then act-
ing governor, has since publicly declared as much in his speech, lately
made in the city of New York. He said:

u I could not know what was the population of these interior and
distant counties. I was not even informed correctly whether there
was any considerable population in them which might claim a repre-
sentation in the convention. I waited with great anxiety when the
returns began to come to me, as secretary and acting governor, for
the returns from the nineteen counties that had been wholly neg-
lected. I had not been informed whether in those counties the offi-
cers had taken the census or not, except perhaps in relation to one or
two of them, and I had no power to force the officers to do their duty ; I
had no power to appoint officers where there were any to perform those
duties ; and the people in those counties, whatever might have been their
disposition, were absolutely deprived of the opportunity of representation
in that convention. Now, I have been denounced, especially by some
of the papers in the Territory, and perhaps out of it, for having made
the apportionment when I did. I have said, and I repeat it again,
that if 1 had then known what I have since ascertained, and tohat I now
believe and Jcnoiv to be true, I should have hesitated before I blwidd have
made an apportionment which should have brought about tha state of
things that now exists. I should have suffered the whole law to fail. I
would have had no convention representing one-half of the Territory,
although, gentlemen, that half undoubtedly represented much the
larger portion of the population ; but I would have had no such con-

16 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

vention ; I would have been the instrument in bringing about no such
meeting, if I had supposed or dreamed for a single moment that they
could have attempted to carry out the plan which they subsequently
adopted, and are now endeavoring to force upon that people.

" But, under the circumstances, without information, supposing, as
I did then, that the people ivho had refused to go into this election, or to
go into the process of registration, were in some measure factious, and
not justified in ivhat they were doing, and not knowing the character of
the population in the other counties, or whether they had any population
at all, or any considerable population, and being under the necessity of
acting by a particular time, (for the returns were to be made on the
1st of May, in my office, and the election was to take place on the
15th of June,) I say, under the pressure of these circumstances, /
could do nothing but what I did. I waited until the very last moment,
(somewhere about the 21st of May,) before I made the apportionment,
in order to give notice that might go to the distant parts of the Ter-
ritory, for a part of the law required ten days* notice before the elec-
tion could take place ; and I waited with the expectation that Gov-
ernor Walker would come, so that I could have the benefit of his
advice ; for if he were there, it would have been his duty, and not
mine, to make the apportionment. The most important facts which
bear upon the case have come to my knowledge since the act by which 1
apportioned the Territory for the election of the sixty delegates ivho com-
posed the constitutional convention."

This shows that the apportionment by the acting governor was
made under a misapprehension of the facts, and had he known at the
time he made it the real state of affairs, it would not have been done,
and from the letter as well as spirit of the law it ought never to have
been done. If an apportionment could have been made with part of
the counties left out, they could all have been left out but such ones
as the officers saw fit to return ; and thus nine-tenths of the people
might have been excluded from representation in the convention.
Indeed, if but a single county had been returned, and all the dele-
gates apportioned to that county, the apportionment would have been
as regular and as legal, and the election of delegates and all the sub-
sequent proceedings would have been as regular and legal as they
now are, and we could with the same reason and same propriety have
been met by the President and the majority of the committee with
the cool declaration that "it is impossible that any people could have
proceeded with more regularity in the formation of a constitution than
the people of Kansas have done."

But the election of delegates came off. The votes were cast mainly
upon one side, for the reasons already stated. At the time of the
election many of the candidates were pledged to provide for a submis-
sion of the constitution to the people for ratification or rejection, and
were elected upon such pledges. A large portion of the nro-slavery
men of the Territory desired this submission, knowing well what
would be the state of feeling among the people of the Territory if this
should not be done. The convention assembled on the 7th day of
September, and was found to have several of its members citizens of
Missouri, enough, indeed, to change the result of its action on the

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 17

slavery question. This, though a plain violation of law, seems to
have passed along without objection . It was found that the submis-
sionists and the non-submissionists were nearly equal, and as a matter
of prudence they adjourned to meet again on the third Monday of
October. What was the cause or design of this adjournment can be
very well understood, and could have been as clearly proved had op-
portunity been afforded. The October election for the territorial
legislature was at hand, and as Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton
had been using their best efforts to quiet the Territory and bring the
whole people to the polls, the majority of the convention thought it
unsafe to let their real purposes be known prior to that election, fear-
ing that the consequences might prove .disastrous to their party, not-
withstanding the extraordinary steps tjiey had taken to maintain its
ascendancy. Yet, if the October election should result against them,
it would be necessary to take still further action to prevent their grasp
being loosened. Before the convention adjourned, however, they had
taken action upon the claim of the delegates elected from the counties
of Anderson and Franklin. Secretary Stanton had given certificates
of election to K. Gilpatrick and J. Y. Campbell as delegates elect
from the county of Anderson, but stating that the census returns of
that county were informal. He also gave a certificate of election to
Wm. K. Judson as delegate elect from the county of Franklin. The
elections in these counties were held on the day required by law, but
neither of them were included in the apportionment of delegates.
Judge Elmore introduced the certificates of election of Messrs. Gil-
patrick and Campbell, and on bis motion they were referred to a select
committee of five. , Mr. Wells introduced the certificate of Mr. Jud-
son, and, on motion of Mr. Easton, it was referred to the committee
on elections. On the 10th of September Judge Elmore, as chairman
of the select committee in the Anderson county election case, sub-
mitted a report in favor of Messrs. Gilpatrick's and Campbell's claim
to seats in the convention, but the convention put off the considera-
tion of the subject until they should reassemble after their adjourn-
ment over. It was apparent that they would be excluded by the
convention, and to prevent any further annoyance to themselves and
indignities from the body that had predetermined to reject them, they
withdrew their certificates, as is understood, on the advice of Judge
Elmore. It is not correct, as has been stated, that they voluntarily
withdrew from this convention. Mr. Judson was also excluded; and
having now the organization to their own liking, they adjourned, as
we have already stated, to the third Monday of October.

The October election for members of the legislature came off. The
efforts of Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, backed up as they
were by the approbation of the President, and by his pledges and
assurances, both personal and official, that he would sustain his ter-
ritorial officers in their efforts to have the elections fairly conducted
for territorial officers, and that the submission of the constitution to
the people should be full and complete, were partially successful.
Confidence in the executive branch of the government began to take
the place of distrust and alienation. A large portion of those who
had, since the first election, abstained from the polls from the causes

18 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

already stated, believing that a better future was before them, went to
the ballot-box and there fairly carried both branches of the legislature,
notwithstanding the most unheard of frauds were, as usual, in many
places resorted to to prevent it.

This election was the commencement of a new era in Kansas ; it
worked an entire revolution in the whole policy of legislation. From
being decidedly pro-slavery in all its movements and objects, it became
opposed to that institution ; and the party whose voice had not been
heard since the first contest in March, 1855, now fully in the ascendant,
assumed to control all the civil affairs in the Territory. It was now
evident that the popular sentiment was not only in favor of excluding
slavery from Kansas, but that nothing but the most daring and un-
scrupulous conduct by the convention could prevent that result from
accomplishment within a brief period. Public meetings were called
in the south, at which the conduct of Governor Walker and the Presi-
dent were denounced as being at war with the rights and interests of
the slaveholding States, and the President was called upon to remove
the governor and secretary from office. The position was also taken
by prominent public men, and by conventions and assemblies in the
south, that the constitution then being framed at Lecompton ought
not to be submitted to the people, but sent directly to Congress.
Letters, resolutions, and addresses from all these sources were poured
upon the delegates, to affect as far as possible their action. • With
this change of affairs in the Territory, and this position of sentiment
proclaimed in the south, the policy of the President underwent a like
change. The official organ of the administration, as late as July,
declared that there was no way of ascertaining the will of the people —

u Except by their own direct expression at the polls. A constitution
not subjected to that test, no matter what it contains, will never be
acknowledged by its opponents as containing any thing but fraud. A
plausible color might be given to this assertion by the argument that
members of the convention could have no motive for refusing to submit
their work to their constituents, except a consciousness that the
majority would condemn it. We confess that we should find some
difficulty in answering this. What other motive could they have ?

u We do most devoutly believe that unless the constitution of
Kansas be submitted to the direct vote of the people, the unhappy
controversy which has heretofore raged in that Territory will be pro-
longed for an indefinite time to come. We are equally well convinced
that the will of the majority, whether.it be for or against slavery,
will finally triumph, though it may be after years of strife, disastrous
to the best interests of the country, and dangerous, it may be, to the
peace and safety of the whole Union.

'•Again: This movement of the territorial authorities to form a
constitution is made, not in the regular way, in pursuance of an
enabling and authorizing act of Congress, but in the mere motion of
the territorial legislature itself. Nay, it has been begun and carried
on in the teeth of a refusal by Congress to pass such an act. This
irregularity is not fatal. There are other cases in which it was over-
looked. But it can be waived only in consideration of the fact that the
people have expressed their will in unmistakable language. If we dis-
pense with the legal forms of proceedings, we must have the substance.

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 19

Ci We think, for these reasons, that Governor Walker, in advocating
a submission of the constitution to a vote of the people, acted with
wisdom and justice, and followed the only line of policy which promises
to settle this vexed question either rightly or satisfactorily. In this
respect, at least, he has done nothing worthy of death or bonds."

This official journal, that had in July used the language already
quoted, faced about, and began to denounce every one who held like
opinions as apostates, renegades, demagogues, traitors, black republi-
cans, &c. An individual holding an office in one of the departments
of the government, and drawing his pay from the federal treasury,
was despatched as an emissary to Lecompton, and proceeded there to
instruct the people of Kansas, through the delegates in the conven-
tion, how to manage their domestic institutions in their own loay.
This was done, and the constitution engineered through the conven-
tion in such a form that, while it pretended to submit the slavery
clause to the people, it in reality did no such thing. In a letter pub-
lished in the. Jackson Mississipian of November 27, and written from
Lecompton on the 7th of November, (the day of the adjournment of
the convention,) and written, as the undersigned have strong reason
to believe, (and think they could have proved had the majority of the
committee allowed them,) by the emissary already alluded to, or at
his connivance, these views of the committee are fully sustained.
After giving a history of the action of the convention upon the mode
of submission of the slavery clause, and showing an amount of legis-
lative jugglery unmatched in history, he says:

" Thus you see that whilst, by submitting the question in this
form, they are bound to have a ratification of the one or the other,
and that while it seems to be an election between a free State and pro-
slavery constitution, it is, in fact, but a question of the future intro-
duction of slavery that is in controvers}^, and yet it furnishes our
friends in Congress a basis on which to rest their vindication of the
admission of Kansas as a State under it into the Union, while they
would not have it sent directly from the convention.

' ' It is the very best proposition for making Kansas a slave State that
was suhmitted for the consideration of the convention. In addition to
what I have stated, it embraces a provision continuing in force all
existing laws of the Territory until repealed by the legislature of the
State to be elected under the provisions of this constitution."

The Lecompton National Democrat of November 19, published on
the spot, says :

« < THE CONSTITUTION.

" We publish this instrument to-day in full. It occupies almost
the whole of our available space, and precludes the pDssibility of any
extended remarks.

11 Our opinion of the final action of the convention, as briefly given
in our last issue, has not been changed by such an examination of the
constitution as we have been able to give it. We still think that the
whole subject should have been submitted to the people. But, at all
events, the slavery question should have been fully and fairly put to
the people for their decision. This, as we understand it, has not

20 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

been done. No matter how the people may vote, if this constitution
should prevail, Kansas will be a slave State. We would not object to
this result if the people should so will it ; but we think they should
have a full opportunity to determine the character of the institutions
of the new State."

The Charleston Mercury, shortly after the opening of the present
session of Congress, said :

u We lay before our readers this morning the message of the Presi-
dent of the United States. It is, as was to be expected, au able docu-
ment, sound in almost all of its positions, and worthy of the Chief
Magistrate of our great confederated republic. The main point of
difficulty and delicacy is in the affairs of Kansas. He thinks that the
convention of Kansas, in submitting only the clause in the constitu-
tion relating to slavery, has fulfilled what he supposes to be the requi-
sition of the Kansas-Nebraska act. We are equally satisfied with the
action of the convention. We differ, too, with the President as to
what is submitted to the vote of the people. We do not. think that the
question of slavery or no slavery is submitted to the vote of the people.
Whether the clauseinthe constitution is voted, out or voted in, slavery exists,
and has a guaranty in the constitution that it shall not be interfered with;
luhilst, if the slavery party in Kansas can keep or get the majority of the
legislature, they may open wide the door for the immigration of slaves.
But this also is a small matter of difference with the President. It is
enough for us that he goes with the South in the policy of admitting
Kansas into the Union with the constitution she shall present,
whether with or without the slavery clause. We heartily support
his policy, although we may not agree in all his reasoning. And,
above all, we rejoice for the sake of our old partiality, and our advo-
cacy of him before he reached the illustrious dignity of the presidency,
that he has not soiled his fame by identifying it with Walker."

These extracts go to show that the view taken by the President and
the majority of the committee that the slavery question had been
fairly submitted to the people of Kansas is incorrect. Not only was
every man who did not favor the constitution itself excluded from the
polls, but even those who went and voted were lending themselves as
instruments to a fraud. It was like submitting to the ancient test of
witchcraft, where, if the accused upon being thrown into deep water
floated, he was abjudged guilty, taken out and hanged ; but if he sunk
and was drowned, he was adjudged not guilty — the choice between the
verdicts being quite immaterial.

The journal of the convention, except that portion covering the last
three or four days of the session, was from some source placed in the
hands of the majority. The most interesting portion embracing the
closing acts of the convention are missing, and will probably remain
so until this question is disposed of. Those missing sheets would
give us the votes upon the various questions and propositions for sub-
mission, showing the object in adopting the mode finally agreed
upon. They would show that non-submission was caused by a mi-
nority of the convention. They would show that, but for the fraudulent
getting up of the convention, the work would have been of a very
different character. They would enable us to see who violated

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 21

pledges, who trampled down parliamentary law and the rules and
orders of the convention itself, to accomplish this tricky form of sub-
mission, and tc consummate a scheme of villany fully intensified.

The minority desired to procure these missing sheets, but they were
not permitted to do so, although it is believed they are in the city,
but suppressed for important but discreditable reasons. The debates
of the convention, taken by its order, formally made and entered upon
the journals, were also within reach of the committee, and could have
been procured had the committee been willing to have had them made
public. They were as much the property of the committee as the
journal itself, and as giving tbe only clear view of the inside workings
of the convention were considered by the undersigned as of the highest
value ; but tliey also were suppressed by the persons having them in
custody, and the undersigned can hardly blame those in charge of
them for doing so, and thus keeping from the public eye a mass of
harangues both atrocious and treasonable.

The undersigned, however, desired the whole truth presented to
the House, and labored, but unsuccessfully, to that end. The consti-
tution was not submitted to the people, because it was well known
that it would be rejected by an immense majority. Yet it seems to
be considered by the president and the majority of the committee that
the best mode of allowing the people to regulate their affairs in their
own way is not to let them have any way or voice at all in the busi-
ness, but to make them subject to the dictation of the Lecompton con-
vention. It is true that the great national convention that met at
Cincinnati and made a declaration of principles for the party which
elected Mr. Buchanan—

u Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the
Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the
legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents,
and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a
constitution with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into
the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

Yet, in Kansas, there was no action by u the people" in forming
this constitution, nor has there been any legally and fairly expressed
tvill of a majority of the people upon this instrument or any of its pro-
visions. The president of the convention, in his letter to the President,
says that the question whether this constitution should contain a
clause making Kansas a slave State or not was submitted to a vote ot
the people of the Territory on the 21st day of December, 1857, and
resulted as follows :

"For the constitution with slavery... ., 6_,226

"For the constitution without slavery 569

" Total vote for the constitution 6,795

" The votes for the two sides of the constitution is a majority over
any vote previously given at any election holden in the Territory,"

Thus the president of the convention seems to feel the force of the
resolution of the democratic party that there should be legally and

22 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

fairly expressed "the will of the majority of the actual residents;"
and he, to meet this, declared that " the votes of the two sides of the
constitution is a majority over any vote previously given at any elec-
tion holden in the Territory ;" thus leaving the impression that there
had been expressed, legally and fairly, the will of the majority of the
actual residents. True, he does not say u so many legal votes were
cast," or that " so many votes were cast/' but he says " the votes for
the two sides," &c, thus including the manufactured, the spurious,
the fraudulent, and all, nearly one -half of which have turned out to
be of some one of these descriptions. The undersigned think it a safe
doctrine to require that, upon all great and important changes in sys-
tems of government, there should be, when a direct submission of a
question is made, a majority not simply of the votes cast, but a ma-
jority of the whole number. No such majority was had for this con-
stitution of Kansas, although it is quite apparent Mr. Calhoun desires
we should think so. By the testimony taken before the commissioners
of Kansas, and hereto appended, it is clear that of the 6,226 pro-
slavery votes cast on the 21st of December, there were 2,720 of them
fraudulent, at the four precincts of Kickapoo, Delaware City, Oxford,
and Shawnee. How many of like character were cast at the other
precincts has not transpired. But admitting all the rest to be correct,
it leaves only 3,506 legal votes cast " for the constitution with slavery,"
and deducting this number from the number cast on the 4th of January,
as certified by Governor Denver, of 10,226 " against the constitution
framed at Lecompton," it leaves a majority of 6,720, or about three
to one, against that instrument in its present form. The undersigned
are informed by gentlemen from Kansas that {here were more than
1,000 votes cast against the Lecompton constitution on the 4th of
January which were not included in the 10,226, not having been re-
turned when the count was made ; but the majority of 6,720 is suffi-
cient for our purpose.

The total vote in October was 11,687, and the total vote for governor
on the 4th of January was 13,420, from which last there should be
deducted at least 2,500 illegal votes returned for the pro-slavery
ticket, leaving about 10,400 as the number of votes cast on that ques-
tion. And it is w^ell known that a large number of the free State men
(including Lane and his partisans) refused to vote for governor.
From all the data within reach of the undersigned it would seem that
the legal voters of Kansas number about 13,000 ; and that nearly all
the legal votes in the Territory were cast on the elections of the 21st
of December and 4th of January for and agaipstthe constitution, and
rejecting it by an unexampled majority of four to one. But it is said
that this vote of the 4th of January is irregular and must not be con-
sidered. We have already shown that, if regularity is to be strictly
required, the Lecompton constitution will not stand the test : that its
whole history is marked by irregularities and outrages from beginning
to end. But this vote of the 4th of January was a legal and valid
one. It was taken under a law of the territorial legislature, which
represented the whole body of the people. The law was approved by
the governor of the Territory, who, in his person, represented the gov-
ernment of the United States. The Secretary of State, with the full

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 23

knowledge of the purposes for which Mr. Stanton had convened the
territorial legislature, instructed General Denver as follows :

" The territorial legislature doubtless convened on the 7th instant,
and while it remains in session its members are entitled to be secure
and free in their deliberations. Its rightful action must also be re-
spected. Should it authorize an election by the people for any pur-
pose, this election should be held without interruption, no less than
those authorized by the convention."

Gen. Cass here directed that the rightful action of the legislature,
in ordering an election upon the constitution, should be held u as free
from interruption as that authorized by the convention." But,
whether recognized by the president and a majority of the committee
or not, the vote of the 4th of January was a fair, just vote, as
expressive of the will of the people of Kansas against the decep-
tive constitution. It was held under authority of law, and under all
the solemn sanctions of official oaths and obligations; and it is amazing
that any one can be willing to exclude such .cor elusive evidence of the
popular will, and either deny its existence or treat it with contempt
and disdain. This, in effect, is the action of the majority of the com-
mittee, who cannot go the length of excluding these great facts, but
yet consider them neither " relevant nor material." The majority of
the committee think this vote comes too late, even if from orderly
citizens. It was the first opportunity these orderly citizens ever
had to condemn the work of the Lecompton convention ; and the Pre-
sident removed Gov. Stanton from office because he called the legisla-
ture together to enable them to speak at all. It seems to have been
his will that the people should have no voice in the matter The only
difference is, that the majority of the committee thinks the vote come
too late, while the President thinks it ought not to come at all. The
election was only two weeks after the one ordered by the convention,
and it was upon a different form of submission, which the legislature
had a right to propose. You have not admitted Kansas yet ; you are
under no moral or political obligation to do so. Twenty-five hundred
persons, citizens of Kansas, have asked you to do it; ten thousand
petition and ask you not to do it. The majority of the commi ttee say that
twenty-five hundred shall be obeyed, and the ten thousand are slapped
in the face and told to " begone; that Congress recognizes the doctrine
of popular sovereignity, and therefore the minority must rule." The
argument is even made in some quarters that minorities ought to
make constitutions and ought to rule. So thinks the despot who
wants but one to compose that minority, carrying out the theory that
the smaller the minority the more perfect the rule. It is true that
the convention attempted to destroy the territorial legislative power ;
but we are entirely clear that in this attempt their wickedness of
design exceeded their ability for its successful perpetration, and that
territorial authorities, in all their branches^ have yet full power to
act until Congress shall admit the State into the Union.

The committee devote about one-half of their entire report to a
review of the opinions of Governor Walker, Secretary Stanton, and
Mr. Douglas. What those opinions have to do with the inquiries and
investigations ordered by the House, it is difficult for the. undersigned

24 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

to see. Suppose every opinion those gentlemen ever advanced to be
wrong, it still does not prove that the Lecompion constitution em-
bodies the will of the people of Kansas, and ought therefore to be
sustained by Congress. The committee, in their argument against
the submission of the constitution to the people, say :

"The formation of a constitution requires, it is true, the exercise
of sovereign power, and so does the commonest act of legislation If
the power to do one can be exercised by an agent or representative, so
can the other ; and such has been the uniform understanding in this
country from the beginning of our history. The Constitution of the
United States was not ratified by a popular vote. In all the States it
was adopted by conventions chosen by the people, and clothed with
full powers to act for them."

Against this attempt to drag constitutions down to the level of
every-clay common-place legislation we protest. It is true the origi-
nal powers of each are in the people. But legislators, in the exercise
of their powers, have to submit their action to the scrutiny of the peo-
ple's executive, to proceed in subordination to constitutions, and their
enactments are within the reach of the courts for annulment if
found to be in contravention of the organic law. The delegates in
conventions are subject to no restraints by executive power, by judicial
tribunals, or by constitutions. They themselves are the architects' of
all these. There is but one authority to which they must submit their
work ; that is the authority of the people. If they approve, well ; if
not, the work is void. As these conventions prepare the highest of
laws, their force must be contingent upon the approval of the highest
authority — that of the people. We deny that the people can delegate
sovereign power to agents. If so, they cease to be sovereign when
their sovereignty is so delegated, and they might transfer their own
rights to liberty and life — a theory in direct hostility to republican or
democratic government. The people can concede nothing by implica-
tion, and, unless a convention be specifically authorized to frame and
set in motion a government, they should report their work to the peo-
ple for approval. It is true the people, by acquiescence, may express
their approbation of the work of their agents, and by consent waive
the failure to submit. But the doctrine that a convention elected by
the people can frame such government as they please, and put it in
operation against the will of nine-tenths of the people, and that the
Congress of the United States will sustain such government, and that
upon a technicality, is both monstrous and revolting.

It is said by the committee the Constitution of the United States
was not ratified by a popular vote ; and this seems to be put forward
as an argument why the constitution of Kansas should not be so rati-
fied. But the Constitution of the United States was framed by a con-
vention, and the whole work submitted to conventions in the States,
and the people, in electing delegates to such conventions, did so with
direct reference to their voting for or against the instrument. In
fact, the people voted upon its rejection or adoption through their
conventions. Will the friends of the admission of Kansas under this
Lecompton instrument concede the same privilege to the people of
Kansas, to wit : the election of a new convention to pass upon that

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 25

constitution ? If they will, the whole difficulty can be settled in an
hour ; if not, let them cease to quote the adoption of the Constitution
of the United States as a precedent.

A parallel is attempted to he drawn between the admission of Cali-
fornia and that of Kansas. The committee say :

Ci How any person could maintain the legality of the proceedings in
the California case, and deny them in Kansas, or hold that an enabling
act by Congress was necessary in the Kansas case, when it was not
necessary in California, is incomprehensible to this committee. They
dismiss the point without further remark."

We have already shown that, in the admission of new States, what-
ever Congress legalizes becomes legal. No adherence to forms renders
it obligatory on Congress to admit — no" departure from them requires
Congress to reject. Each case must stand upon its own merits, although
we think the better course is to follow the usages and precedents set
by the early fathers. But look at the California case. Their consti-
tution was adopted by over eleven thousand majority upon a popular
vote. Not one voice came from California objecting to her admission.
The Kansas constitution was rejected by almost as great a majority,
and the masses of her people are praying and protesting against her
admission under it. To those of us who profess to have some regard
for the popular will the difference in these cases is quite comprehen-
sible. We " dismiss the point without further remark."

But the majority say that the five counties of Leavenworth, Atchi-
son, Douglas, Doniphan, and Jefferson, had a majority of the whole
vote of the Territory, and thirty-six out of the sixty delegates to the
convention. The committee go on to say:

" Now, if it be true that the opponents of th,e constitution are so
largely in the majority in those counties, and are so violent in their
opposition, as they are represented to .be, why did they not elect men
to the convention who would have formed a constitution more to their
liking ? These counties alone, by the registry, had within four votes
of two-thirds of the convention, and could have made just such a con-
stitution as would have been most agreeable to their people. If they
refused to act at The proper time why do they complain now ? If
others, conforming to the law, went into the convention and formed
a constitution to suit themselves, was it not their fair, just, and legal
right to do it? Those complaints come too late, even if they come
from orderly, law-abiding citizens. As well might the thousands
who abstained from the polls, or threw away their votes, at the last
Presidential election, now come forward and claim that the present
administration is illegal, and should be set aside, because the inaugu-
rated Chief Magistrate did not receive a majority of all the legal
voters of the United States, as for these people now to complain of the
result of their own laches or illegal acts, or to seek to remedy it by
any such irregular proceeding as the vote taken on the 4th of January
against the constitution after it had been legally adopted ?

Whether a majority of the people of these counties were, at the time
of the election of delegates, opposed to a constitution or not, it is impos-
sible to ascertain, and what the public sentiment might have been had

26 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

the convention done its work like an honest assembly is equally impossi-
ble to know. But it is not strange that the people of Leavenworth and
Douglas and Shawnee should be violently opposed to the work of dele-
gates, a large portion of whom had falsified pledges and attempted to
cheat the people out of their dearest and inalienable rights. It is quite
useless for the President or the majority of the committee to set up a
standard of action for the people of Kansas which their own conven-
tion have rejected. In the 14th section of the schedule it is provided
that before a change can be made in the constitution, " hothirds of
the members of each House concurring, they shall recommend a vote of
the people for a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of
all citizens of the State have voted for a convention, then the legisla-
ture shall provide by law for an election." The convention of Kan-
sas, which the committee say was the people of Kansas, did not think
it the proper mode of changing or making organic law to have it done
by the few who might go and vote. The people of Kansas think there
should be expressed affirmatively a wish for a change by a majority of
all the citizens of the Territory,. and this to be preceded by a like wish
from tivo-thirds of both branches of the legislature. Now, by what
reason the President and the committee undertake to say that the few
hundred who go to the polls shall rule in a matter of fundamental
law the many thousands who do not go to the polls when the conven-
tion, whose action they laud so highly, and which they say spoke for
the people of Kansas, adopted a different and opposite rule, can
only be explained from the fact that a bad cause requires ingenious
defences ; and there is no more analogy between the position of those
who might have voted at the Presidential election and did not vote,
and those who complain of wrongs perpetrated under the oppressive
laws of Kansas, and in.and by this convention, (all of which were beyond
the reach of the people,) than there is between the President with his
breakfast before him refusing to-eat and Tantalus, perishing with hun-
ger, unable to reach the fruits hanging upon the boughs around him,
but which withdraw from his reach at every attempt to pluck them.

The majority of the committee hold that there is no mode of ascer-
taining whether the Lecompton constitution is acceptable and satis-
factory to a majority of the legal voters of Kansas*T

"Without polling every legal voter in the Territory, and if they
had gone there and taken the vote themselves for and against the con-
stitution, perhaps the majority might have varied from one side to the
other by death, emigration, or change of opinion, before their report
oould have been made. That course of investigation is wholly im-
practicable. The only proper mode of pursuing the legitimate inquiry
before Congress, in the judgment of the committee, is to ascertain
whether the constitution embodied the legally and fairly-expressed will
of those who by their acts acknowledge themselves to be bona fide citi-
zens and constituent elements of the society or political community to
be organized in a State within its jurisdiction. Those who by their
acts show themselves not to be bona fide citizens but mala fide resi-
dents, and even self-acknowledged outlaws by their open hostility to
all civil authority, should not be considered or taken in the count.
The convention that formed the constitution was as fairly constituted

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 27

as could be with the view of allowing every bona fide citizen in Kansas
entitled to vote to have a free opportunity to be heard in its formation.
This Mr. Stanton said ; this Governor Walker said ; this Judge
Douglas said ; this, also, abundantly appears from the facts and evi-
dence now submitted. The only correct test of the will of a majority
of the bona fide voters of Kansas upon the subject of their constitution
is that of the ballot-box, and such an expression of their will as has
been there given at the proper time and place, in conformity to law.
By this test a majority of them is certainly in favor of it. The ma-
jority of those going to the polls when the election of delegates, with
full and plenary power took place, was largely in favor of those who
made the constitution ; and when the direct question on the slavery
clause was submitted on the 21st December the like majority was over-
whelmingly in favor of it. On the 4th of January, in the election of
State officers under the constitution, it is well known that both parties
joined in a vigorous contest for the organization of the State under it.
Upwards of 12.000 voters participated in that election. That vote
shows most clearly that the constitution is not only acceptable, but has
been accepted by at least four-fifths of the voters of the territory,
though it may not be entirely satisfactory to all of thern."

Without analyzing at length this elaboration of subtilties, it is
sufficient to say that the committee were not asked* for their opinion
whether emigration or death would have varied public opinion in
Kansas before a report of the fact could be made ; but they were di-
rected to inquire whether, at the time of the adoption of the resolution
under which they act, the constitution framed at Lecompton was "ac-
ceptable and satisfactory to a majority of the legal voters of Kansas,"
This they have not done. But, in order to arrive at their conclusions,
they say :

" Those who by their acts show themselves not to be bona fide citi-
zens but mala fide residents, and even self-acknowledged outlaws by
their open hostility to all civil authority, should not be considered or
taken into the count. * * * The only correct test of the will of
the majority of the bona fide voters of Kansas upon the subject of their
constitution is that of the ballot-box, and such an expression of their
will as has been there given at the proper time and place, in' con-
formity to law. By this test a majority of them is certainly in favor
of it.""

Here it seems the committee first decided that all who did not vote at
the election in October, 1856, for or against a convention, and all who
did not vote at the June election, 1857, (whether registered or not,) for
delegates to the convention, and all who did not vote "for the con-
stitution" in December, 1857, are " mala fide" residents" or " self-
acknowledged outlaws." After this assumption, as gratuitous and
untenable in itself as it is uncharitable and unjust to the people of
Kansas, we are prepared for anything that may follow. But, admit-
ting the "test," it is still untrue that a majority of the people of
Kansas are in favor of the Lecompton constitution. The committee,
in their report, state that 6,795 votes were cast "for the constitution"
at the December election. There is no evidence of this vote but the
general statement of Calhoun, a statement in itself entitled to no con-

28 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

sideration. It could have been proved before the committee, had the
majority allowed it/ that of this 6,795 votes nearly one-half were
fraudulent and illegal. And it has been fully established by testimony
taken by a commission acting under a law of the Territory that, in
four precincts alone out of about one hundred and twenty in the Ter-
ritory, near 3,000 illegal votes were cast on the 21st of December "for
the constitution.'' This cuts down at a single slice the pro-constitu-
tion vote to nearly one fourth of the vote claimed by the committee in the
entire Territory. If one-fourth of the votes constitute a majority, the
undersigned have been greatly in error in their understanding of the
term.

But the committee go further, and say that, at the 4th of January
election for State officers, "upwards of twelve thousand voters partici-
pated;" and they add, " that vote shows most clearly that the con-
stitution is not only acceptable, but has been accepted by at least four-
fifths of the voters of the Territory/' If the committee were aware
of the circumstances under which that vote was cast, it is surprising
that they should claim the votes cast for the Smith ticket as favoring
the constitution. If they were not aware of these circumstances, we
will briefly state them. The whole vote alleged to have been cast at
that election for the pro-slavery ticket was 6,545 ; of this number there
have been found to have been cast in five precincts 2,458 illegal or
fraudulent votes, leaving only 4,187 as the largest number rightfully
to be claimed as having been cast for that ticket. Indeed, it is believed
that investigation would reject from this number a very large portion
as spurious and unlawful. On the other hand, there were cast for the
free State ticket 6,875 votes, being a majority over the pro-slavery
ticket of 2,688 votes. These votes for the free State ticket were cast,
under protest, against the constitution. It is a notorious fact, which
cannot be denied or evaded, standing out boldly before the public
view — a fact that will be recorded unhesitatingly by every historian
in after time — that those votes were cast by citizens of Knnsas 'protesting
that they should not be considered as a recognition of the constitution;
and at the moment they were cast they placed also in the ballot-box
another ticket, on which was written their sentiments " against the
Lecompton constitution" and 10,226 voters of the Territory so declared
their sentiments on that day at the polls. The whole free State ticket
were understood to be publicly pledged against putting the Lecompton
constitution into operation, and were voted for solely to defeat the
operation of that instrument. These free State officers, thus elected
under the constitution, if you please, have all joined in a petition to
Congress to reject it. The people went to the polls and plead to the
jurisdiction of your tribunal, and you, with star chamber justice and
magnanimity, claim thatplea&s an acknowledgment of the very thing
they denied. The people of Kansas have been unfortunate. If they
decline to vote, you call them rebels and self acknowledged outlaws;
if they vote, you overwhelm them with frauds, and say that voting
is an acknowledgment that their protests against your outrages are
untrue. You place them between the blades of your quibbling logic,
and whether one falls or the other rises, their rights are cut off with
the same cruel certainty. Not a vote has ever been taken in the Ter-

CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 29

ritory of Kansas relating to this Lecompton constitution that has not
demonstrated the fact that it is both unacceptable and unsatisfactory to
a majority of the legal voters of Kansas. And yet the committee
weave a conclusion directly the reverse of the facts.

But the President advises us that it is " wise to reflect upon the
benefits to Kansas and the whole country which would result from its
immediate admission into the Union/' The undersigned can see no
such benefits, but consequences disastrous to Kansas and fraught with
danger to the whole country. The idea of an irresponsible power
coercing a people to submit to a government which they never formed,
and which they despise and abhor, and this while they stand implor-
ingly before you, beseeching you not to do it, is so repugnant to our
every sense of justice, and so galling to that spirit of independence
which marks the American character, that it can hardly be expected
that the people of Kansas will quietly submit to it. It would be, in-
deed, a matter for themselves to determine; but, judging from the
past, we think no other results could follow than to inflame an already
excited public feeling to acts of resistance which could be justified by
as high principles as ever governed men in resistance to tyranny and
oppression. But were it even certain that the fond anticipations of
the President could be realized by the admission of Kansas, it would
not, still, justify the perpetration of so great a wrong. No temporary
advantage can ever- compensate for a departure. from a just principle in
government. .

The President and the majority of the committee think that a large
number of the States would keenly feel the rejection of Kansas, and
would look upon her rejection with extreme sensitiveness and alarm.
If so, we think it would be wholly without cause. But we think a
still larger number would look upon her admission with equal sensi-
tiveness and alarm. Not because her constitution recognizes slavery,
for we undertake to say that, upon the application of a new State for
admission into the Union, if a majority of its voters express their will
legally and fairly in favor of that domestic institution, such fact is not,
and will not be, with the people of the non-slaveholding States, a
cause for rejection or objection; but the people of the whole country
would feel, as they ought to feel, that, in this admission of Kansas,
Congress would have endorsed and legitimated the most glaring
irregularities, frauds, corruptions, and outrages, and would have fin-
ished their disreputable work with a violation if not a deadly blow at
the first principles of civil liberty. The whole progress of this Kansas
constitution, from the beginning, has been irregular, unjust, and cor-
rupt. No State has ever presented herself for admission with a con-
stitution constructed under such irregularities and through such vio-
lations of law. No precedent can be found for dragging a State into
the Union against the will of three-fourths of her people. It is not
admitting a sovereign State into the Union, but it is the coercion of a
subject province.

The committee conclude their report as follows :

u The argument that Congress, by the admission, will be forcing
any institution whatever upon an unwilling people is as gratuitous as
it is groundless, even if a majority there be opposed to slavery. For,

30 CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS.

by the Constitution of the United States, slavery is as much forced
upon them as by tlie constitution of Kansas."

It is difficult to match the boldness of this first assertion. The
people of Kansas have declared through every authoritative form that
they are opposed to becoming a State under this constitution. Con-
gress has alone the power to make them a State by admitting them
into the Union. If that act shall be done by Congress, a constitution,
with all the institutions which it provides and guarantees, will be
forced upon" an unwilling people, and whether the committee held such
statement u gratuitous and groundless," or not, is a matter of very
little consequence. The l( argument" is nevertheless true. Whether
" by the Constitution of the United States slavery is as much forced
upon them as by ihe constitution of Kansas" is a matter into which
the committee were not directed to inquire, and this opinion, uttered
as it is in this connexion, is the merest obiter dictum.

The undersigned have had placed in their possession since the com-
mittee adjourned a full report of all the testimony taken before the
Kansas territorial commission, duly certified and authenticated, which,
with the report thereon by the commissioners before whom it was
taken, is attached to this report. It is impossible to characterize the
frauds of the elections of the 21st of December and the 4th of Jan-
uary as they deserve. We call to this evidence the attention of the
House and the country, merely remarking that it is the settled convic-
tion of the undersigned that these elections were not more unfairly
and unjustly conducted than many which had preceded them.

They also append to this report a copy of the act of July, 1855 ; the
act of February 19, 1857 ; the proclamation of Secretary Stanton of
May 20, 1857 ; an extract from the executive minutes; also a copy of
the Lecompton constitution, and the letter of Calhoun accompanying
the same ; also the vote of the people on the 4th of January (taken
under the law of the territory) for and against the constitution.

They also present, as connected with the action of the committee, a
record of its proceedings, and the views of the minority thereon.

'In conclusion of this subject we will only add that, being fully con-
vinced that this Lecompton constitution is neither acceptable nor satis-
factory to anv considerable number of the people of Kansas, much less
to a majority of them; that it is not their act; that it neither speaks
their sentiments nor embodies their will; that it is the offspring of
fraud, corruption,- and villainy; that the laws under which it was
originated and the proceedings connected with its prosecution have
been informal, irregular, and unjust; that the instrument bears upon
its own face and in its own composition ample evidence of its base
origin and deceitful pretensions, we think it would be highly improper
to admit Kansas into the Union as a State under this constitution, and
that such act would not only be unjust to the people of that Territory,
but it would be dangerous to the peace and welfare of the whole
country.

THOS. L. HARRIS,
GARNETT B. ADRAIN.

*

'